But to compile, you need the SWC.

Your dependency is the SWC, or am I wrong?

The artifiact doesn't change.  I can use the same SWC as external or
as runtime or as merged....

So, I don't believe changing type is the right decision.

VELO


On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 5:17 PM, Christian Edward Gruber
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yeah - I may do that too with the flex thing because a .swf is the
>  normal web-deployable, but a particular dynamic linking approach
>  (called Remote Shared Libraries) uses .swf files as libraries.  I may
>  force it by using a swf-rsl packaging type, but I haven't completely
>  figured that out.
>
>  Christian.
>
>
>
>  On 14-Mar-08, at 16:14 , Shane Isbell wrote:
>
>  > I'm not sure the specifics of VELOs problem but I have run into some
>  > issues
>  > with NMaven for .NET support. There may be cases (like netmodules, or
>  > linking of assemblies) where you don't want transitive dependencies,
>  > they
>  > need to be direct. So it is up to the plugins to decide if
>  > artifactType[x]:compile is transtive or not. It is the same scope
>  > but the
>  > behavior is different depending on artifact type.
>  >
>  > There are also issues such as the Global Assembly Cache. In this
>  > case, I use
>  > a provided scope but when the plugins see an artifact dependency with
>  > dotnet:gac_msil type, they know to treat it differently.
>  >
>  > So the key is not to change scopes but to change the artifact type
>  > of the
>  > dependency to handle different behavior of the scope.
>  >
>  > Shane
>  > On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 12:50 PM, Christian Edward Gruber <
>  > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>  >
>  >> Why would you actually need other scopes?  Don't think of scope,
>  >> think
>  >> of use-cases:
>  >>
>  >> 1.  Need for both compile and in the deployed system
>  >> 2.  Need only for compile.
>  >> 3.  Need only in the deployed system
>  >> 4.  Provided locally for compile
>  >> 5.  Need only during testing
>  >>
>  >> What other scenarios would your other language have need for?  These
>  >> are the scenarios that are handled by the maven dependency scopes.
>  >>
>  >> Christian.
>  >>
>  >> On 14-Mar-08, at 10:45 , Brian E. Fox wrote:
>  >>
>  >>> Nope, the scopes are coded into the core and most of the plugins
>  >>> since
>  >>> it's a core concept.
>  >>>
>  >>> -----Original Message-----
>  >>> From: VELO [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>  >>> Sent: Friday, March 14, 2008 9:42 AM
>  >>> To: Maven Developers List
>  >>> Subject: Re: Custom scopes
>  >>>
>  >>> And there is any where to say: "Hey maven, I wanna change your
>  >>> scopes,
>  >>> I wanna this scopes"?
>  >>>
>  >>>
>  >>> VELO
>  >>>
>  >>> On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 10:13 AM, Christian Edward Gruber
>  >>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>  >>>> "System" scope doesn't exist in Java either.  It's not a Java
>  >>>> thing,
>  >>>> but a Maven thing, and it just means that the dependency is
>  >>>> provided
>  >>>> at compile time by a local direct path, and that the ultimate
>  >>>> runtime
>  >>>> will provide the dependency.
>  >>>>
>  >>>> Christian.
>  >>>>
>  >>>>
>  >>>>
>  >>>> On 14-Mar-08, at 07:25 , VELO wrote:
>  >>>>
>  >>>>> Hi guys,
>  >>>>>
>  >>>>> I'm developing a maven compiler mojo to another language (not
>  >>>>> Java,
>  >>>>> but I prefer don't reveal, at least not now).
>  >>>>>
>  >>>>> That language have more scopes (total 6).  One (COMPILE) is Java
>  >>> like.
>  >>>>> But the others have different naming:
>  >>>>> RUNTIME on Java there is called EXTERNAL
>  >>>>> PROVIDED on Java looks like to RUNTIME on this language
>  >>>>> SYSTEM  doesn't exist
>  >>>>>
>  >>>>> I wanna the same Java Scopes, but I wanna to use another name
>  >>>>> convention.
>  >>>>>
>  >>>>> How can I create my custom scope and insert they into the maven
>  >>>>> dependency mechanism? I need to do that because I have 2 types of
>  >>>>> transitive dependencies and 3 non transitive.
>  >>>>>
>  >>>>> Any one can help me?
>  >>>>>
>  >>>>>
>  >>>>> VELO
>  >>>>>
>  >>>>>
>  >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>  >>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>  >>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>  >>>>>
>  >>>>
>  >>>>
>  >>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>  >>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>  >>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>  >>>>
>  >>>>
>  >>>
>  >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>  >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>  >>> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>  >>>
>  >>>
>  >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>  >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>  >>> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>  >>>
>  >>
>  >>
>  >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>  >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>  >> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>  >>
>  >>
>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to